The Bombay High Court has refused to grant protection to unauthorised structures built on a property in Andheri West and imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the petitioner, observing that the penalty should serve as a deterrent to those who violate building laws.
A division bench comprising Justices A S Gadkari and Kamal Khata dismissed petitions challenging notices issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) directing the removal of unauthorised constructions.
The court criticised both the property owner for carrying out extensive construction without the required permissions and the civic administration for failing to take timely action. The judges observed that there was an increasing tendency among property owners to construct first and seek regularisation later if the authorities eventually intervene.
The bench also expressed strong disapproval of the BMC’s failure over the years to act promptly against unauthorised residential and commercial constructions. It said elected representatives also had a responsibility to prevent such violations in areas under their jurisdiction.
Case Involving 34,000 Sq Ft of Construction
Shah Constructions Co. Ltd had approached the high court challenging notices issued by the designated officer of the BMC’s K-West ward on May 26 and July 1. The notices concerned several structures on the company’s property in Andheri West.
The disputed structures included five portable cabins, a temporary shed being used as a car workshop, three banquet halls, multipurpose temporary sheds, an office and a storage shed. A separate petition concerned a shop, office and toilet.
The petitioner argued that the structures were “tolerated commercial structures” that had existed before April 1, 1962. However, after examining the company’s response, the BMC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the structures had existed before that date and directed their removal within 15 days.
Court Rejects Evidence Cited to Justify Structures
The petitioner relied, among other things, on a BMC licence issued in 1961 for stone-cutting. The court, however, held that the licence did not establish that the disputed structures were already in existence before April 1, 1962.
The judges noted that portable cabins had also been installed without BMC permission. They made it clear that documents such as property assessment records, electricity bills or shop and establishment licences cannot by themselves legalise a structure that was originally constructed without permission.
The court further rejected attempts to use repair permissions as a means of indirectly protecting unauthorised buildings, observing that such arguments could not be accepted when the underlying construction itself was unlawful.
Court Rejects Offer to Remove Only Part of Construction
Shah Constructions had offered to voluntarily demolish some of the structures. The total constructed area was estimated at around 34,000 sq. ft, while the petitioner offered to remove approximately 18,000 sq. ft.
The court viewed the proposal as an attempt to retain a substantial portion of the unauthorised construction and declined to grant protection to the remaining structures.
The bench warned that allowing such constructions to remain could create the impression that violations of the law could be overlooked when the violator had sufficient financial resources.
As a deterrent against such violations, the court directed Shah Constructions to pay ₹10 lakh to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center.
The ruling underscores the court’s position that unauthorised construction cannot acquire legal status merely because it has existed for a long period or because the authorities have previously failed to take timely action.
